Considering that consenting adult marijuana consumption is one of the definitive victimless crimes, where there is no apparent victim and no apparent serious pain or injury, it means it should never have been a crime to begin with.If anything, the history of marijuana laws and their application are arbitrary, irrational and draconian by any reasonable standards. Therefore, marijuana consumers are victims of the law, not offenders of the law.
Evidently, now that marijuana consumption is moving into the mainstream of legalization, it makes me wonder what the hell were we thinking of all those years of criminalization? Clearly, there was and is no good conscience behind criminalizing marijuana. Historically, the escalation of marijuana laws turned tens of millions of Americans into criminals who were not criminals before.
States in today’s politicized environment leaning to legalization or having legalized marijuana, owe an enormous debt to those they have wrongfully mistreated. In this case, the fact that marijuana consumers were violating existing law is mitigated by the understanding that the enactments of marijuana offenses were unjust, politically motivated and injurious to those arrested and incarcerated. Thus, the real offenders are the elected officials and their constituents who supported and enacted the anti-marijuana legislation.
Over the past couple of years I’ve read calls for amnesty for marijuana prisoners. However, while the Vermont legislature does have a mechanism for expungement and sealing of records as of July 2012, crimes that qualify for this process does not include marijuana offenses. Moreover, amnesty is the process for individuals to petition for a pardon or forgiveness for an error or offense. Yet, most adult marijuana consumers who have been charged with a criminal offense in the past had no criminal intent, no criminal priors and did not create any tangible offense.
Under amnesty, marijuana prisoners are assumed to have had criminal intent so that the state can then say, okay, we forgive you. Then the state washes its hands and walks away. Amnesty absolves the state from any responsibility for wrongful incarceration. No state that does that much harm to so many people should think they can just legalize marijuana and then walk away.
The best hope and reparation for nonviolent marijuana prisoners is release and redress, not amnesty. More appropriately, redress is “compensation for injuries sustained, recovery or restitution for harm done, or, for injury or damages that demand equitable relief.” 
The right to petition for a “governmental redress of grievances” is a First Amendment right that is sustained by the growing acceptance that adult marijuana use is a fundamental human right.
Consequently, any state legislature that has legalized or intends to legalize marijuana should, by right, add or contain the meaningful, reasonable and effective necessary provisions for the retroactive redress of all nonviolent marijuana offenders.
Vidda Crochetta
Brattleboro
{Vidda Crochetta is the 2010 cofounder of Marijuana Resolve, Inc. with the mission to publicly educate the necessity of decriminalizing marijuana as a harm deduction measure in the years prior to legalization of marijuana, and to help keep Vermonters out of harm’s way from the criminal justice system. That mission ended on July 1, 2013 when Governor Peter Shumlin signed the decriminalization bill that became law in the State of Vermont.}
Also published in:
Burlington Free Press
January 13, 2016
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/opinion/my-turn/2016/01/13/opinion-marijuana-victimless-crime/78755490/
Brattleboro Reformer
POSTED: 01/21/2016
Marijuana ‘offenders’ deserve reparations
Editor of the Reformer:
http://www.reformer.com/letterstotheeditor/ci_29414826/letter-marijuana-offenders-deserve-reparations
Bennington Banner
POSTED: 01/14/2016
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/letters/ci_29385187/letter-editor-marijuana-should-never-have-been-illegal
The Manchester Journal
POSTED: 01/14/2016
http://www.manchesterjournal.com/letters/ci_29385185/letter-editor-marijuana-should-never-have-been-illegal
The Barre Montpelier Times-Argus
Release, redress
January 19,2016
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20160119/OPINION02/160119610/1022
The Caledonian-Record, St. Johnsbury, VT
Redress For Wrongful Nonviolent Marijuana Incarcerations – Vidda Crochetta
January 22, 2016
http://caledonianrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=19
VTDigger.org
JAN. 21, 2016 BY COMMENTARY
http://vtdigger.org/2016/01/21/vidda-crochetta-marijuana-offenders-deserve-redress/
a coupon?
I think you are right, but I’m doubtful this would happen. People hate paying for old mistakes (“It wasn’t me, it was my grandfather!”)
A really simple way to do this would be to send each of the former “offenders” a gift certificate for some newly-legal Vermont marijuana. Might not fully compensate, but might be appreciated. : )
Still waiting for our tax-desiring Selectboard to call on Montpelier to create this new local option tax. They were able to take field trips to talk about other longer-shot possibilities a while back, why not go and push for this? It would completely change the tax situation here for the better. It’s going to happen sooner or later. Are they afraid to do this? Why?
Selectboard push for marijuana (taxes). Ha! That’ll be the day.
I doubt full redress for marijuana prisoners would happen too, although the message here goes beyond a realistic expectation.
I like the coupon ideal. Although we’d end up in a bidding war with the other legal states as to who is awarded the lucrative coupon contract.
Based on the current composition of the SB, I couldn’t imagine them calling on Montpelier. Not only is it not in their blood to have anything to do with marijuana, but they would consider it a political territoriality issue, like treading on the state’s turf. Neither would the SB take too kindly to the state assembly “calling on” them to push for something the assembly want enacted here in Brattleboro.
However, the SB would damn sure be only too happy to see a marijuana tax infusion that Brattleboro would benefit from.
Taxes Breakdown and Town Prohibition (or Not)
Voters can prohibit marijuana establishments in their towns by a majority vote at an annual or special meeting. Local governments can also regulate such establishments in their zoning bylaws and require them to obtain licenses through the town. Towns can also increase penalties for smoking marijuana in public.
It would equally divide revenue from marijuana taxes into four parts: Treatment, prevention, law enforcement, and the general fund. Money to address impaired driving would also train an additional 10 drug recognition experts, and fund 25 more state troopers over the next three years.
See Full Text for other amendments:
http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci_29441738/sears-long-road-ahead-marijuana-bill-even-if
A Police station!
There’s something right there to lobby for – being able to use fund toward law enforcement buildings and structures.
Very timely and useful if pursued.
Pot Profit for New Police and
Pot Profit for New Police and Fire Accommodations, how ironic is that!
In line with our values
Cigarettes and liquor for health!
Gambling via the lottery for education!
so true, what a world we live
so true, what a world we live in where our (some would say bad) habits keep on giving the whole year round.
What’s wrong with this picture??
“It would equally divide revenue from marijuana taxes into four parts: Treatment, prevention, law enforcement, and the general fund.”
According to the above quote related to the proposed legal marijuana bill, only 25% of the revenue goes to the “general fund.”
However, 75% goes to essentially the criminal justice system = treatment, prevention, law enforcement.
How much of alcohol revenue goes towards “treatment, prevention and law enforcement?”
Another reason to press for what we want
Right, another reason for the Selectboard and town to get involved now, and demand a greater share for general use.
Act now, or settle for your handout.
I’d request 50% minimum for general use. Maybe more. This will be a large pile of money if it is all like the other states doing it. This is the chance to help cover the costs of being a regional hub. This should be as important to our leaders as the VY money.
And maybe percentages are the wrong way to measure this. (i.e., What would these agencies be able to justify in a budget request, rather than what pile of cash shall we give away?)